Tunnelling and

Underground Space
Technology
incorporating Trenchless
Technology Research
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 435–441
www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Ovaling deformations of circular tunnels under seismic loading, an

update on seismic design and analysis of underground structures
a,*
Youssef M.A. Hashash , Duhee Park b, John I.-Chiang Yao c

a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Avenue, MC-250,
Urbana, IL 61801, United States
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, Haengdang-Dong, Seoul, Korea
c
CH2M HIL, 13921 Park Center Road, Suite 600, Herndon, VA 201, United States

Received 2 September 2004; received in revised form 28 January 2005; accepted 18 February 2005
Available online 21 April 2005

Abstract

Two analytical solutions for estimating the ovaling deformation and forces in circular tunnels due to soil–structure interaction
under seismic loading are widely used in engineering practice. This paper addresses an unresolved issue related to discrepancy
between the two solutions. A comparison of the two solutions shows that the calculated forces and displacements are identical
for the condition of full-slip between the tunnel lining and ground. However, the calculated lining thrusts differ by an order of mag-
nitude when assuming no-slip between the tunnel lining and the ground. The analytical solutions are compared to numerical anal-
yses of the no-slip condition using the finite element method to validate which of the two solutions provide the correct solution.
Numerical analysis results agree with one of the analytical solution that provides a higher estimate of the thrust on the tunnel lining,
thus highlighting the limitation of the other analytical solution.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Earthquake design; Seismic design; Tunnels; Underground structures

1. Introduction condition. Since the inertia effect can be relatively small,

The component that has the most significant influ-
ence on the tunnel lining under seismic loading, except
for the case of the tunnel being directly sheared by a
fault, is the ovaling or racking deformations (Penzien,
2000). Studies suggest that, while ovaling may be caused
by waves propagating horizontally or obliquely, verti-
cally propagating shear waves are the predominant form
of earthquake loading that causes these types of defor-
mations (Wang, 1993). The ovaling deformation is com-
monly simulated as a two-dimensional, plane-strain
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 217 333 6986; fax: +1 217 333 9464.
E-mail addresses: hashash@uiuc.edu (Y.M.A. Hashash), dpark@
hanyang.ac.kr (D. Park), john.yao@ch2m.com (J.I.-C. Yao).
the ovaling deformation is further simplified as a quasi-
static case and hence without the dynamic interaction.
Wang (1993) and Penzien (2000) present closed form
solutions to compute displacements and forces in the lin-
ing due to equivalent static ovaling deformations. The
analytical solutions are frequently used in estimating
the deformation and forces in tunnels. Hashash et al.
(2001) identifies a significant discrepancy in the com-
puted lining thrust between the Wang and Penzien solu-
tions, as demonstrated in design example 3 of Hashash
et al. (2001). This discrepancy has important implica-
tions as far as lining design and is of concern to many
design engineers. For example, this discrepancy was an
issue on two projects the first author was involved with
including, (a) the Muni Metro Turnaround Project in
downtown San Francisco, CA and (b) the Alameda

0886-7798/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2005.02.004
436 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 435–441

Nomenclature

c shear strain t thickness of tunnel lining

cm maximum shear strain C compressibility ratio of tunnel lining
cmax maximum free-field shear strain of soil or El modulus of elasticity of tunnel lining
rock medium Em modulus of elasticity of soil or rock medium
s simple shear stress of a soil element F flexibility ratio of tunnel lining
smax maximum shear stress Gm shear modulus of soil or rock medium
D lateral deflection I moment of inertia of the tunnel lining (per
Ddfree-field free-field diametric deflection in non-perfo- unit width) for circular lining
rated ground K1 full-slip lining response coefficient
Ddlining lining diametric deflection K2 no-slip lining response coefficient
Dd nlining lining diametric deflection under normal Mmax maximum bending moment in tunnel cross-
loading only section due to shear waves
ml PoissonÕs ratio of tunnel lining R lining-soil racking ratio
mm PoissonÕs ratio of soil or rock medium Rn lining-soil racking ratio under normal load-
d diameter or equivalent diameter of tunnel ing only
lining Tmax maximum thrust in tunnel lining
h thickness of the soil deposit Vmax maximum shear force in tunnel cross-section
r radius of circular tunnel due to shear waves

Tubes Retrofit project connecting Oakland to Alameda Dd free-field c

¼
max
island in the San Francisco Bay. d 2
Eq: ð8Þ in Hashash et al. (2001). ð1Þ

2. Analytical solutions of ovaling deformation of circular If the ovalling stiffness is very small compared to the
tunnel with soil–structure interaction surrounding ground, the tunnel distortion or diametric
strain is calculated assuming an unlined tunnel (referred
The simplest form of estimating ovaling deformation to as perforated ground):
is to assume the deformations in a circular tunnel to be
Dd free-field
identical to ‘‘free-field’’, thereby ignoring the tunnel– ¼
2cmax ð1  mm Þ
ground interaction. This assumption is appropriate d
when the ovaling stiffness of the lined tunnel is equal Eq: ð9Þ in Hashash et al. (2001). ð2Þ
to that of the surrounding ground. The circular This deformation is much greater in the case where
tunnel–ground shearing is then modeled as a continuous the presence of the tunnel is included compared to the
medium (referred to as non-perforated ground) without case where only the continuous ground deformation is
the presence of the tunnel (Fig. 1), in which the diamet- assumed.
ric strain for a circular section is calculated as: In most cases the lining ground interaction has to be
taken into account. As a first step, the relative stiffness
of the tunnel to the ground is quantified by the com-
pressibility and flexibility ratios (C and F), which are
measures of the extensional and flexural stiffnesses
(resistance to ovaling), respectively, of the medium rela-
tive to the lining (Hoeg, 1968; Peck et al., 1972):


Em 1  m2l r
C¼
El tð1 þ mm Þð1  2mm Þ
Eq: ð19Þ in Hashash et al. (2001); ð3Þ


Em 1  m2l r3
F ¼
6El I ð1 þ mm Þ
Eq: ð20Þ in Hashash et al. (2001); ð4Þ
Fig. 1. Free-field shear distortion of perforated (tunnel cavity is
empty) and non-perforated ground (tunnel cavity is filled), circular where Em is the modulus of elasticity of the medium, I is
shape (after Wang, 1993). the moment of inertia of the tunnel lining (per unit
 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 435–441 437

width) for circular lining, r, t the radius and thickness of

the tunnel lining respectively.
In early studies of racking deformations, Peck et al.
(1972), based on earlier work by Burns and Richard
(1964) and Hoeg (1968), proposed closed-form
solutions in terms of thrusts, bending moments, and
displacements under external loading conditions. The
response of a tunnel lining is expressed as functions
of the compressibility and flexibility ratios of the
structure, and the in-situ overburden pressure
and at-rest coefficient of earth pressure of the soil.
The solutions are developed for both full-slip and
no-slip condition between the tunnel and the lin-
ing. Full-slip condition results in no tangential shear
force.
Wang (1993) reformulated the equations to adapt to
seismic loadings caused by shear waves. The free-field
shear stress replaces the in situ overburden pressure
and the at-rest coefficient of earth pressure is assigned
a value of (1) to simulate simple shear condition.
The shear stress is further expressed as a function of
shear strain.
Assuming full-slip conditions, the diametric strain, Fig. 2. Sign convention for force components in circular lining (after
the maximum thrust, and bending moment can be ex- Penzien, 2000).
pressed as (Wang, 1993):
Dd lining 2
¼ K 1F Em
Dd free-field 3 T max ¼
K 2 smax r ¼
K 2 rc
2ð1 þ mm Þ max
Eq: ð27Þ in Hashash et al. (2001); ð5Þ
Eq: ð25Þ in Hashash et al. (2001); ð9Þ
1 Em where
T max ¼
K 1 rc
6 ð1 þ mm Þ max
F ½ð1  2mm Þ  ð1  2mm ÞC   12 ð1  2mm Þ2 þ 2
Eq: ð22Þ in Hashash et al. (2001); ð6Þ K2 ¼ 1 þ  
F ½ð3  2mm Þ þ ð1  2mm ÞC  þ C 52  8mm þ 6m2m þ 6  8mm
1 Em Eq: ð26Þ in Hashash et al. (2001). ð10Þ
M max ¼
K 1 r2 c
6 ð1 þ mm Þ max Note that no solution is developed for calculating
Eq: ð23Þ in Hashash et al. (2001); ð7Þ diametric strain and maximum moment under no-slip
condition. It is recommended that the solutions for
where full-slip condition be used for no-slip condition. The
12ð1  mm Þ more conservative estimates of the full-slip condition is
K1 ¼ considered to offset the potential underestimation due
2F þ 5  6mm
to pseudo-static representation of the dynamic problem
Eq: ð24Þ in Hashash et al. (2001). ð8Þ
(Wang, 1993).
The sign convention for the above force components Penzien and Wu (1998) and Penzien (2000) developed
in circular lining is shown in Fig. 2. According to vari- similar analytical solutions for thrust, shear, and
ous studies, slip at the interface is only possible for tun- moment in the tunnel lining due to racking
nels in soft soils or cases of severe seismic loading deformations.
intensity. For most tunnels, the interface condition is be- Assuming full slip condition, solutions for thrust,
tween full-slip and no-slip, so both cases should be moment, and shear in circular tunnel linings caused by
investigated for critical lining forces and deformations. soil–structure interaction during a seismic event are ex-
However, full-slip assumptions under simple shear pressed as (Penzien, 2000):
may cause significant underestimation of the maximum d
thrust, so it has been recommended that the no-slip Dd nlining ¼ Rn Dd free-field ¼ Rn cmax
2
assumption of complete soil continuity be made in
modified after Eq: ð29Þ in Hashash et al. (2001);
assessing the lining thrust response (Schwartz and Ein-
stein, 1980): ð11Þ
438 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 435–441

12El IDd nlining 6El IRn cmax 24El Ið3  4mm Þ

T max ¼
¼
a¼
3
d ð1  m2l Þ d 2 ð1  m2l Þ d 3 Gm ð1  m2l Þ
modified after Eq: ð30Þ in Hashash et al. (2001); Eq: ð40Þ in Hashash et al. (2001). ð22Þ
ð12Þ
6El IDd nlining 3El IRn cmax 2.1. Comparison of closed form solutions including soil
M max ¼
2
¼
structure interaction
d ð1  m2l Þ dð1  m2l Þ
modified after Eq: ð31Þ in Hashash et al. (2001); The two analytical solutions are compared by calcu-
ð13Þ lating the forces and displacements for three typical cir-
24El IDd nlining 12El IRn cmax cular tunnels with concrete lining. The dimension and
V max ¼
3
¼
material properties of the lined tunnels are given in Ta-
d ð1  m2l Þ d 2 ð1  m2l Þ
bles 1 and 2. The soil properties selected for Case 1 of
modified after Eq: ð32Þ in Hashash et al. (2001). Table 1 are identical to design example 3 presented in
ð14Þ Hashash et al. (2001). Three combinations of YoungÕs
modulus and PoissonÕs ratio are used. Maximum ap-
The lining-soil racking ratio under normal loading plied shear strain is 0.00252 as calculated in design
only is defined as: example 3 of Hashash et al. (2001). The calculated forces
4ð1  mm Þ (maximum thrust and moment) and displacement (rack-
Rn ¼

ðan þ 1Þ ing ratio), for both full-slip and no-slip conditions, are
Eq: ð33Þ in Hashash et al. (2001); ð15Þ listed in Table 3.
The comparisons show that the calculated forces and
where displacements are identical for the full-slip assumption
12El Ið5  6mm Þ for all three cases. However, PenzienÕs solutions result
an ¼ in much lower estimates of maximum thrusts compared
d 3 Gm ð1  m2l Þ
to WangÕs solutions assuming no-slip condition. Penz-
Eq: ð34Þ in Hashash et al. (2001). ð16Þ ienÕs solutions result in approximately doubling the val-
In the case of no slip condition, the formulations are ues of thrust for no-slip compared to full-slip condition.
presented as: WangÕs solution provides a much larger value for thrust.
For Case 1, thrust for no-slip is almost 16 times higher
d than for full-slip.
Dd lining ¼ RDd free-field ¼ R cmax
2 PenzienÕs maximum moment and racking ratios are
modified after Eq: ð35Þ in Hashash et al. (2001); almost identical for full-slip and no-slip conditions. This
ð17Þ contradicts WangÕs conclusion that full-slip condition
results in more conservative estimates.
24El IDd lining 12El IRcmax
T max ¼
¼
2
d 3 ð1  m2l Þ d ð1  m2l Þ
modified after Eq: ð36Þ in Hashash et al. (2001); Table 1
Soil properties used in the analysis
ð18Þ
Soil parameter Value
6El IDd lining 3El IRcmax Case 1 YoungÕs modulus (Em) 312,000 kN/m2
M max ¼
2 ¼
PoissonÕs ratio (m) 0.3
d ð1  ml Þ2 dð1  m2l Þ
Case 2 YoungÕs modulus (Em) 312,000 kN/m2
modified after Eq: ð37Þ in Hashash et al. (2001); PoissonÕs ratio (m) 0.49
ð19Þ Case 3 YoungÕs modulus (Em) 185,400 kN/m2
PoissonÕs ratio (m) 0.49

24El IDd lining 12El IRcmax

V max ¼
3 2
¼
2
d ð1  ml Þ d ð1  m2l Þ
Table 2
modified after Eq: ð38Þ in Hashash et al. (2001); Tunnel lining properties used in the analysis
ð20Þ Lining parameter Value
YoungÕs modulus (El) 24,800,000 kN/m2
where Area (per unit width) 0.3 m2/m
4ð1  mm Þ Moment of inertia (I) 0.00225 m4/m
R¼
Lining thickness (t) 0.3 m
ða þ 1Þ Weight 0
Eq: ð39Þ in Hashash et al. (2001); ð21Þ PoissonÕs ratio (m) 0.2
 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 435–441 439

Table 3
Calculated forces and stress using the analytical solutions
Wang Penzien % Difference
Full slip No slip Full slip No slip Full slip No slip
Case 1
Racking ratio 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.55 0 1.2
Maximum thrust (Tmax) 62.94 1045.38 62.94 124.64 0 738.7
Maximum moment (Mmax) 188.81 188.81 188.81 186.95 0 1.0
Maximum shear (Vmax) – – 125.87 124.64
Case 2
Racking ratio 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 0 0.0
Tmax 46.83 813.59 46.83 93.60 0 769.2
Mmax 140.48 140.48 140.48 140.40 0 0.8
Vmax – – 46.83 93.60
Case 3
Racking ratio 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 0 0.0
Tmax 44.99 507.21 44.99 89.90 0 464.2
Mmax 134.97 134.97 134.97 134.85 0 41.5
Vmax – 44.99 89.90 0

Note that the solutions of Case 1 are different from
the results calculated in Hashash et al. (2001). Minor er-
rors in the previous calculations (maximum applied
strain should have been 0.00252 instead of 0.0021 and
moment of inertia of the lining should be 0.00225 m4/m
instead of 0.0023 m4/m) are corrected in this paper.
3. Numerical analysis to evaluate analytical solutions
A series of numerical analyses are performed using
the finite element code PLAXIS (PLAXIS-B.V., 2002)
to evaluate the analytical solutions for ovaling defor-
mations of circular tunnels. The numerical analysis
uses first principle for the solution of a boundary va-
lue problem and is expected to give the correct solu-
tion. The analyses use assumptions identical to those
of the analytical solution; (a) plane-strain condition,
(b) ground and lining are linear elastic and mass-less
materials. Shear loading is applied at the upper ends
of the boundaries to simulate pure shear condition.
In PLAXIS, only no-slip condition between the tunnel
lining and ground is simulated. The numerical analysis
solution is first verified by analyzing non-perforated
and perforated ground. The computed ovaling defor-
mations are nearly identical to those obtained from
Eqs. (1) and (2).
The results of the numerical analyses of tunnel–
ground interaction for Cases 1–3 are presented and
compared to analytical solutions in Table 4 and

Table 4
Comparison of analytical solution with numerical solution
Numerical Wang Numerical vs. Wang (%) Penzien Numerical vs. Penzien (%)
No-slip No-slip No-slip
Case 1
Racking ratio 2.18 2.58 15.5 2.55 14.5
Tmax 1050 1045.38 0.4 124.64 742.4
Mmax 158.87 188.81 15.9 186.95 15.0
Vmax 105.98 – 124.64 15.0
Case 2
Racking ratio 1.86 1.92 3.1 1.92 3.1
Tmax 820.86 813.59 0.9 93.60 777.0
Mmax 138.89 141.57 1.9 140.40 1.1
Vmax 95.28 – 93.60 1.8
Case 3
Racking ratio 1.82 1.84 1.1 1.84 1.1
Tmax 511.28 507.21 0.8 89.90 468.7
Mmax 133.43 134.97 1.1 134.85 1.1
Vmax 90.38 89.90 0.5
440 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 435–441

1400 200
Wang Wang
1200 Case 1
Case 1

(Analytical solutions)
(Analytical solutions)
Penzien Penzien
150
1000
Case 2 Case 3 Case 2
800
100
600 Case 3
1:1 Line 1:1 Line

max
max

400
50

M
T

200 Case 3 Case 2 Case 1

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 50 100 150 200
T (Numerical solution) M (Numerical solution)
max max
3
Wang
Racking ratio (Analytical solutions)

2.5
Penzien Case 1

2
Case 3 Case 2
1.5

1 1:1 Line

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Racking ratio (Numerical solution)

Fig. 3. Comparison of calculated forces and racking ratios of numerical solution (x-axis) and analytical solutions (y-axis).

Fig. 3. The calculated maximum moments and racking condition of no-slip. This discrepancy is a source of
ratios agree well with both analytical solutions of confusion in the design of circular tunnel lining.
Case 2 and 3, but differ by approximately 15% for Two-dimensional finite element analyses are performed
Case 1. The maximum axial thrusts from numerical to validate which of the two analytical solutions pro-
analyses result in almost perfect match with WangÕs vide the correct solution. Comparison with numerical
solutions, whereby the differences are within 1% for analysis demonstrates that one of the solutions signif-
all three cases. However, the difference between the icantly underestimates the thrust in the tunnel lining
numerical and PenzienÕs solutions are significant. The for the condition of no-slip and should not be used
difference is higher than 700% for Cases 1 and 2, in for that condition.
which PenzienÕs solutions highly underestimate the
thrust for all three cases. The comparisons clearly
demonstrate that the WangÕs solution provides a real- References
istic estimate of the thrust in the tunnel linings for the
no-slip condition. It is recommended that the Penz- Burns, J.Q., Richard, R.M., 1964. Attenuation of stressses for buried
iensÕs solution not be used for no-slip condition. cylinders. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Soil–Structure
Interaction. University of Arizona, Tempe, AZ.
Hashash, Y.M.A., Hook, J.J., Schmidt, B., Yao, J.I.-C., 2001. Seismic
design and analysis of underground structure. Tunn. Undergr. Sp.
4. Summary and conclusions Technol. 16, 247–293.
Hoeg, K., 1968. Stresses against underground structural cylinders. J.
Two available analytical solutions to compute in- Soil Mech. Found. Div. 94 (SM4).
duced forces and deformations due to ovaling defor- Peck, R.B., Hendron, A.J., Mohraz, B., 1972. State of the art in soft
mation of a circular tunnel are presented. The ground tunneling. In: The Proceedings of the Rapid Excavation
and Tunneling Conference. American Institute of Mining, Metal-
solutions provide identical results for the condition lurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 259–286.
of full-slip between the tunnel lining and the ground Penzien, J., 2000. Seismically induced racking of tunnel linings. Int. J.
but differ in values of the calculated thrust for the Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynamics 29, 683–691.
 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20 (2005) 435–441 441

Penzien, J., Wu, C.L., 1998. Stresses in linings of bored tunnels. Int. J.
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynamics 27, 283–300.
PLAXIS-B.V., 2002. PLAXIS: Finite element Package for Analysis of
Geotechnical Structures, Delft, Netherland.
Schwartz, C.W., Einstein, H.H., 1980. Improved Design of
Tunnel Supports, vol. 1. Simplified Analysis for Ground–
structure Interaction in Tunneling. UMTA-MA-06-0100-
80-4, Urban Mass Transit Transportation Administration,
MA.
Wang, J.N., 1993. Seismic Design of Tunnels: A State-of-the-art
Approach. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., New
York, NY, Monograph 7.